A law blog addressing the foci of 3 intrepid law geeks, specializing in their respective fields of knowledge management, internet marketing and library sciences, melding together to form the Dynamic Trio.

Pages

6/20/11

You've probably heard the saying that "Youth is wasted on the young." After seeing the list of participants in the program, "The Future of Law Libraries: The Future Is Now?" put on by Harvard Law School's John Palfrey on June 16th, the thought of "Idea generation and future planning of law libraries is wasted on the Academics," crossed my mind. Now, before Academics get their noses bent out of shape, bear with me for a minute because I'm going to take the law firm librarians out behind the woodshed as well.

Take a look at the participants for this collaboration who were there to "discuss and critique blueprints for the next iterations of our future."

Academic librarians: 107

Gov't/Court libraries: 13

Vendors/Stakeholders: 10

Firm Librarians: 7

Corporate Librarians: 1

These were the participants. When it came to Firm Librarians actually sitting on panels or presenting at the meeting, that number drops to zero. That is a serious shortcoming of the meeting, and causes the end results of such a meeting to be unfairly skewed away from an important subset of the profession.

As someone that has worked in the Academic setting (twice), the state court and county system, and at an AmLaw 100 firm, here's my take on what each of these subsets of the law librarian field brings to the party:

Courts - "Where the story begins"

Academics - "Where the ideas roam"

Private Law Firms - "Where the money is"

Each piece is important, but as many of us know, it is the Academics that really are designed to think about the process of law librarianship and develop theories about how to improve processes and procedures so that the profession continues to thrive and be relevant over a long period of time. The academics are truly those that like to toss out ideas, develop theories, and predict the future, and debate all of these among each other to see which of them hold water as judged by their peers. The only problem is that they are predicting the future using a formula that is missing a significant variable … the Private Law Firm Librarian's perspective.

It is not totally the Academics' fault for this missing variable, however. At least half (probably more than half) of the blame rests on the shoulders of the law firm librarians. Here the Private Law Librarians have a chance to really participate and leverage the strengths of their Academic brethren, yet without fail, I usually hear one or more of the following excuses on why they won't participate in these types of future planning meetings:

My firm won't pay for it, therefore I can't attend

I'm too busy billing work and can't afford to take time off

The ideas that come out of these meetings don't work in my specific situation

The first two excuses I can somewhat forgive… that last one really pisses me off when I hear it. And I hear it a lot! One of the biggest problems I've run across in the Private Law Librarian field is that there are those that believe that when they go to a conference or meeting that they have to come away with a specific answer to a specific problem that addresses their specific need. If they don't get that specific answer, then they gripe about what a waste of time and money it is and how it "failed" them by not giving them the answer they need to take back to their boss. I think I've written this before… what these people are wanting is a consultant, not a conversation. These types of meetings/conferences are set up to bounce ideas off of one another and to debate the validity of the ideas within the three major subsets of the law librarian profession. If you don't participate, then you're causing the results to shift toward the subsets of the profession that do participate.

Now, back to the Harvard meeting.

These types of meetings need to continue, but they need to be better balanced when it comes to the subsets that make up the law library profession. Academics talking to Academics is not the way to define the future of the profession. I'm going to challenge John Palfrey that when he sets up 2012 edition of "The Future of Law Libraries" that one in five (20%) of the speakers be from law firms. I'm also going to challenge the Private Law Firm Librarians, especially those in Chief or Director levels of large and mid-sized firms, to answer the call when Palfrey asks you to participate. If you really care about the profession, then find a way to contribute to meetings like this so that Private Law Firm Librarians aren't left out of the equation.

12
comments:

Nicole Snyder
said...

Regarding the irritating Number 3 answer--- At the end of the year when I'm writing my budget proposal for the next year's travel/education, I have to compare everything that I attended in the year previous. Its just too tough to continue attending a meeting that had no actionable take away in the proposal when I attend so many that do have a take away. I can use that money for a workshop or a multi-week course.

Perhaps it's a "Chicken & Egg" argument. If law firm librarians were participating, then it would have the "actionable take away's" that you need. If there were five Directors of major law firm libraries presenting, then you'd have something to challenge those workshops or multi-week courses.

I would suggest you ask the program organizers if they bothered to reach out to the PLL Board or other private law firm library directors. There are quite a few PLL Library directors who speak on a regular basis and would have been more than happy to participate had we been invited.

In my decades as a private law librarian, I've never been asked what meetings I want to attend, I've been told which ones. Criteria is based on budget, taking turns with other librarians, and political atmosphere at work.

Well, I'm glad that you've at least dropped by here to share that with this law librarian.

I actually get some great ideas from fellow law librarians. In fact I have a group set up on my email shortcut (AKA "The Bradys") and bounce ideas off of them nearly everyday. Of course, there are also non-law librarians in that group as well. No need to exclude anyone that has good ideas to share. In fact, here's a graphic that demonstrates our philosophy on idea sharing.

Law firm librarians have always had to justify their attendance at conferences. These days it is even harder. The library budget is being cut relentlessly with non-attorneys making the spending decisions. Finding a new job or sticking up for myself sounds good but in reality not an easy or wise choice. Many of us have to contend with being out of sight and out of mind. In many cases the library has moved from the center of research to just another service on a lower floor.I still love what I do but find that our profession is going in the wrong direction. There are still firms that show appreciation for their library staff but I would say that we have moved even farther from the legal side of the business.Of course we are all free to participate in professional development and we should do it for ourselves. The ability to share and learn has always been one of the best things about this profession.

It would have been nice to have more "in the trenches" representation. Timing and location kept me from attending / participating. As a law librarian in a two person corporate law library, and manager of our internal legal records staff, it is very hard to find a convenient time to attend events. I even made a note to watch the web cast, but that plan failed when end of fiscal year issues took over. I am able to attend AALL every other year as long as it is somewhat local and I can arrange coverage with my colleague. Some years I have paid 100% of the costs myself, other years have been subsidized.

In my decades as a private law librarian, I've never been asked what meetings I want to attend, I've been told which ones. Criteria is based on budget, taking turns with other librarians, and political atmosphere at work. Governments